"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives..."

June 14, 2002 10:50 AM

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives..."
The Rev. Jerry Vines slams Islam while speaking to delegates at the Southern Baptist Convention this week. The group's newly-elected president, the Rev. Jack Graham, refused to denounce the comments since "his statement is actually a statement that can be confirmed." Hmmm... since when is 'demon-possessed' an emperical statement?

Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if a Muslim leader denounced Jesus with this much venom?
posted by Dirjy (47 comments total)

Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if a Muslim leader denounced Jesus with this much venom?

Unlikely to happen as Musilms see Jesus as a prophet. The thing is, there is nothing you can tell people like Vines (or any extreme theologist). You just have to wait until they die ad hope another doesn't come along.
posted by jackiemcghee at 10:54 AM on June 14, 2002

Upright Muslim leaders would never denounce Jesus, since he is considered a prophet by Islam.

Why anyone would listen to what the Southern Baptist fuckwit Convention says about anything is beyond me. These are the people whose members, like the reptillian Fred Phelps, picket funerals, hate the Jews, and blame 9/11</a. on homosexuals, feminists and the ACLU.

It should be abundantly clear that these people are subhuman and submental, and their views on anything should be discounted.
posted by evanizer at 11:02 AM on June 14, 2002

jesus was a happy man but now he's dead and that is all he is.
posted by Satapher at 11:03 AM on June 14, 2002

Right on, evanizer.
posted by artifex at 11:03 AM on June 14, 2002

Whoa! That got FUBARed. Let's try again:

...These are the people whose members, like the reptillian Fred Phelps, picket funerals, hate the Jews, and blame 9/11 on homosexuals, feminists and the ACLU....
posted by evanizer at 11:06 AM on June 14, 2002

Rev. Jerry really needs to have a look at ol' Jesus's lifestyle & friends before he starts getting on the moral high horse. Way to bring people together Rev.

Tell you one thing, second coming & there'll be a lot of Rev. Jerry-types crapping their pants.
posted by i_cola at 11:10 AM on June 14, 2002

These people are crackpots and should be ignored.

[Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if a Muslim leader denounced Jesus with this much venom?]

There are far worse things than this airing on arabic tv everyday without a whole lot of fuss from us.
posted by revbrian at 11:11 AM on June 14, 2002

Don't forget Gore Vidal. They hate him, too.
posted by tingley at 11:11 AM on June 14, 2002

depressing and pathetic
posted by Satapher at 11:16 AM on June 14, 2002

Right wing fundamentalists are a sad hate filled bunch.
posted by nofundy at 11:19 AM on June 14, 2002

If Muhammad was a demon-possessed paedophile, then what's the Catholic church's excuse?!

Think before you speak, reverend.

I'd still love to see the reaction to a religious laders calling Jesus a "fraud on a rod".
posted by Dark Messiah at 11:23 AM on June 14, 2002

From Satapher's link: "Topeka: A City Of Whores"

Good lord, what must they think of San Francisco?
posted by hob at 11:24 AM on June 14, 2002

Mohammed did have multiple wives, and one of them was a 9-year-old girl. However she did not become a 'proper' wife until she was older, her marraige was born out of necessity and familial relationships. It is not uncommon to this day in some parts of the world for babies or children to be 'married' in order to maintain family ties, etc. To call him a pedophile is to deliberately ignore the reality of the historical situation. It would also call into question many Biblical figures who also had multiple wives and political marriages.

As for the demon-possessed, by Christian dogma Mohammed would be demon-possessed, as he preached the word of the same Lord as Jesus, but denied that Jesus was literally God's son, even while confirming many other parts of the Jesus story, and revering him as one of the most important prophets who ever lived. To a Christian fundamentalist, anyone who claims to speak the word of God but denies the idea that Jesus was God's son could be seen as possessed by demons.
posted by cell divide at 11:24 AM on June 14, 2002

Sorry for a short sidetrack, but the whole picketing funerals thing, before I read the link, made me think they were taking the advice of Bill Hicks to anti-abortionists too seriously.

"If you're so pro-life, do me a favor. Don't block med clinics. Okay? Lock arms, and block cemeteries."

"She can't come in." "She's ninety-six! She was hit by a bus!" "There's options."
posted by nath at 11:25 AM on June 14, 2002

Mohammed did have multiple wives, and one of them was a 9-year-old girl. However she did not become a 'proper' wife until she was older, her marraige was born out of necessity and familial relationships.

Indeed. Defining "child marriages" as "pedophiliac" would do in a large number of medieval and Renaissance marriages among the Christian nobility, where a girl might "marry" at eight (or earlier) but would not actually share her husband's bed until she came of age in her teens.
posted by thomas j wise at 11:56 AM on June 14, 2002

There are two issues: what Muhammad taught in his times, and how people who consider themselves Muslims live and think today. It's possible to impeach the later without the former. And there's much reason to impeach the latter.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:00 PM on June 14, 2002

Well, Thomas, the evidence for Aisha's age (which is not in the Qu'ran, but in the later Hadiths) is that she was married before the age of 9, but sometime around that age (presumably after reaching puberty) the marriage was consummated. However she did not become a 'proper' wife, a companion etc. until a little later. At this point Mohammed was in his 50's, and he died 10 years later, or thereabouts. (This is all coming back to me from college study, so I may have few thing slightly off).

Mohammed's first wife was Khadija, who was more than 20 years his senior. They were together for 20 odd years (and Khadija was close to death) when Mohammed took a second wife, and later took 13 more. Something like 3/4 of them besides Aisha were widows, and none of them were children.

So people today might have a problem with Mohammed's marriage based on current age definitions, but as you say, Pedophaelia is clearly not part of Mohammed's ouvre.
posted by cell divide at 12:04 PM on June 14, 2002

I for one don't believe you can judge people of the ancient past on moral standards of the day. As others said above, there were a fair number of Christians who married girls at 8 or 9, and they didn't wait until they were older to connsumate.

As for "demon-possessed," Jesus received revalations from angels and God, (if you believe that stuff,) so what makes Mohammed any better?

As for the Southern Baptist spokesperson saying that "that people should be careful, "just who you are following and what you believe, " yet again, "hello kettle, this is the pot speaking."
posted by aacheson at 12:06 PM on June 14, 2002

Oops, I meant to say:

As for "demon-possessed," Jesus received revelations from angels and God, (if you believe that stuff,) so what makes Mohammed any worse?
posted by aacheson at 12:06 PM on June 14, 2002

Quotes from Muhammad:

"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." Hadith, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24, Narrated Ibn 'Umar.

"If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." Hadith, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 537, Narrated Abu Huraira.

". . . Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people's saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you." Hadith, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah.

I don't know about you but Muhammad sounds pretty legit to me.
posted by aaronshaf at 12:15 PM on June 14, 2002

Actually the last one isn't Muhammad. Still Hadith though.
posted by aaronshaf at 12:19 PM on June 14, 2002

From the Quran: "..We did not leave anything out of this book.." 6:38

This is why some (not all) Muslims do not follow or trust the Hadiths. To them, the only Hadith is the Quran. The Quran seems to bear this out, many times it proclaims to be a continuation of previous scriptures, and is complete, without any necessary additions.
posted by cell divide at 12:23 PM on June 14, 2002

I for one don't believe you can judge people of the ancient past on moral standards of the day.

Why not? Not saying I disagree with you, just...why not?
posted by rushmc at 12:44 PM on June 14, 2002

I don't know about you but Muhammad sounds pretty legit to me.

Huh? What in your quotations lead you to conclude anything about Muhammad being "legit?"
posted by rushmc at 12:45 PM on June 14, 2002

Ah, Bill Hicks.

"Abortion. Never before have I seen such a decisive issue. I've got a lot of intellegent friends, and they just can't seem to see eye to eye on this one. See, on one hand, I've got some friends that think pro-lifers are stupid morons. But then, on the other hand, I've got other friends that think pro-lifers are ignorant fucks.

Brothers, sisters, come together. Can't we all just find some middle ground and call them ... stupid ignorant moron fucks?"
posted by jragon at 1:08 PM on June 14, 2002

The hadith are a sort of glossary to the Qu'ran - the Qu'ran provides the framework of the muslim way of life, the hadith fills in how this applied to life in Muhammad's (pbuh) time. Of course, it indicates in the Qu'ran that the application of the Qu'ran will vary with the age in which we live (as there are less camels about and stuff), and that therefore you have to consider the words carefully, but the hadith are an excellent starting point, especially if you get a decent teacher/scholar to explain bits you're confused about.

Is this guy really a top leader in the Christian Church?? I agree with Ibrahim Hooper that its unfortunate that if he is he should have such a vitriolic and bigoted view. And sadder that the rest of the leaders in the SBC agree with him..

There are two issues: what Muhammad taught in his times, and how people who consider themselves Muslims live and think today. It's possible to impeach the later without the former. And there's much reason to impeach the latter.

ParisParamus, over a fifth of the world's population is Muslim, are you saying that the majority of these people are living and thinking wrong? In a given population of a over a billion, there will always be some crackpots, but to dismiss the faith of the rest like that..
posted by Mossy at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2002

I think good cases could be made supporting the idea that the majority of the people of the world are "living and thinking wrong," so 1/5 seems reasonable. (Of course, it all depends upon the criteria you use....)
posted by rushmc at 1:41 PM on June 14, 2002

Why anyone would listen to what the Southern Baptist fuckwit Convention says about anything is beyond me. These are the people whose members, like the reptillian Fred Phelps, [...]

Just for clarification, Fred Phelps' church isn't Southern Baptist. There are many varieties of churches that carry the Baptist label, and not all are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
posted by ChrisTN at 1:48 PM on June 14, 2002

to add to ChrisTN: the Southern Baptist Convention has a significant philosophical split in it, the Phelpsian style (to which the term "fuckwit" rightly applies) and a, larger, more tolerant segment, whose services and general ethos resemble most of the other Protestant denominations in tone and content, save for a retained reliance on traditional water-immersion baptism, and geographical location (that'd be "southern"). The Phelps' are a small but vocal minority, drawing the most attention with their antics. Assuredly, even the tolerant Baptists are traditional conservative Christians, with all that entails. But most are not of Phelps' ilk, and the ones I've talked to (quite a few; MissusFes is a southern Baptist, and I was married in a southern Baptist church by a southern Baptist preacher) typically are embarassed by the wacky pronouncements of these nutjobs.
posted by UncleFes at 2:43 PM on June 14, 2002

These people are crackpots and should be ignored.

Until they or their zombie minions blow up federal office buildings or fly planes into buildings? We ignore these nutcases at our own peril. We can't censor him, obviously, but we should at least outshout him.

ALL fundamentalism is stupid and limiting, be it Christian or Islamic or atheist.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 3:13 PM on June 14, 2002

Dirjy, Islamic "scholars" and "leading clerics" regularly say things much, much worse than that about Jews, it's sad to say. And polling data show that these views are much more commonly held about Muslims (in the Middle East, anyway) than the Phelpsian rhetoric is given credence in the Christian west. Certainly Christians have few freedoms of religion in the more conservative Islamic nations, and the Christian Assyrians found that Indigenous Peoples Under the Rule of Islam have an uphill battle. And I blogged about the sorry persecution of even Muslim minorities such as the Qadiani Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan and Kashmir.

So, Dirjy, my response would be that it (Muslim preachers denouncing unbelievers with venomous metaphors relating to illogically literal readings of their texts of faith) happens all the time -- and most people don't notice.
posted by dhartung at 3:27 PM on June 14, 2002

I for one don't believe you can judge people of the ancient past on moral standards of the day
Rushmc, I say this because moral standards change with the times. What we consider morally reprehensible may have been the norm back in history.

For example, back when Muhammad was alive, the average life expectancy was very young...say-30's? Women were married off at very young ages and had children very young. It was safer for young girls/women to have babies because their bodies would "bounce back" faster than people in their 20's and later. Less infection, less death. Therefore, as repugnant as it is for us to think of a 13 year old being a wife and mother, all the way into recent history, it was SOP. If you were single and 18, you were an old maid and your hopes for marriage were almost non-existant, mostly because you were at high risk for dying in childbirth.

Then there's the multiple wives thing. Life was much harder then. The work was very hard for women and so it made sense for more women to be in a home to share the work. Healthy strong men were hard to come by-since there was so much war and death and the roaming tribes of people made finding new men a difficult proposition, so it made sense for a strong man to marry multiple women-or the women may not have married at all. Additionally, the more women a man married, the more children he could have, which was also important to survival. In today's era, it is looked down upon, but back then it was an arrangement that frequently made sense to all involved parties.

You can also look at an example of young children working and dropping out of school at an early age. Again, in the 21st century, it's awful to think of kids working and dropping out of school to work. However, back in pretty recent history, it was more important for kids to work to feed the family and survive than it was for education. So again, if you apply today's moral standards to what was done back then, you can be very critical of them. But you must always take into account the historical perspective when judging the past.

If I had time, I would back up all this historical stuff with links, but I don't. Suffice it to say I have a passion for midevil european and ancient middle eastern history and have frequently read about this kind of thing-so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass.
posted by aacheson at 3:29 PM on June 14, 2002

What we consider morally reprehensible may have been the norm back in history.

So what is the norm = what is morally good? Always, inarguably, in every case, whatever the period of time being examined?

I agree with you that one cannot understand the choices, moral and otherwise, that people make without an understanding of the context within which they make them. But the relationship between understanding and approving should not be a direct one, necessarily.

My point is actually not what it appears to be. People today often judge things as Right or Wrong. Looking at differing moral standards in the past, some are willing to say "well, things were different then, you can't hold them to our (obviously superior) moral standards!" And I don't think that's intellectually honest; it's too simplistic. Any recognition of any level of moral relativism must also acknowledge its application to US, today, as well as to those poor primitives of the past.

Not saying that that's what YOU were saying, but that's the point I was driving at with my question, that it's not a case of "us right, them wrong" OR "all moral codes are equivalent regardless of time or circumstances," even though, in many cases, one could present an argument to that effect.
posted by rushmc at 3:55 PM on June 14, 2002

ParisParamus, over a fifth of the world's population is Muslim, are you saying that the majority of these people are living and thinking wrong? In a given population of a over a billion, there will always be some crackpots, but to dismiss the faith of the rest like that

I'm not saying I endorse Rev. Vines statement. His brand of religion is disturbing as well. What I am saying is that I don't think it coincidence that 9/11 was the work of Muslims; pr the vast majority of Muslims live in poverty (economic, political and intellectual). I also find Islam problematic for its treatment of women. I also find the silence in the face of 9/11/02 disturbing. And please don't respond with some reference to a past era in the West. The whole point is that Islam in 2002 strikes me as not being the most positive of influences.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:05 PM on June 14, 2002

No, like you said, what is the norm isn't always what is morally good. The Inquisition? Always a bad thing. The holocost? Never good. The crusades, pogroms, religous persecution, rape, murder, wars....those are morally reprehensible in any day and age. But you still gotta look at them with a historical understanding. For example, what was going on in the world that made the crusades look like a damn good idea to Western Europe at the time? (If you want that answer, read "Holy War: The Crusades and their impact on the world today" by Karen Armstrong)

You're right, I'm sure there's lots we're doing that in the future will be looked upon as barbaric and inconcievable in a few generations. like you said, it's not a right or wrong thing. (Hell, I can think of a bunch of stuff we as a society do NOW that's morally wrong no matter when you're looking at it.)

Good point about understanding and approving not being the same thing. I heartily agree, rushmc.
posted by aacheson at 4:10 PM on June 14, 2002

It isn't Islam that is at fault, it's the lack of separation between religion and government. Take a look at the deep South: it's a small reflection of the same phenomena. I think a generality can be made: those cultures that are fundamentalist (a) are economically disadvantaged; (b) have a high number of wingnuts who advocate eliminating others; (b) repress a portion of their own culture (ie. women).
posted by five fresh fish at 4:12 PM on June 14, 2002

It isn't Islam that is at fault, it's the lack of separation between religion and government. Take a look at the deep South: it's a small reflection of the same phenomena. I think a generality can be made: those cultures that are fundamentalist (a) are economically disadvantaged; (b) have a high number of wingnuts who advocate eliminating others; (b) repress a portion of their own culture (ie. women).
posted by five fresh fish at 4:12 PM on June 14, 2002

Yes, Jerry Vines is considered a leader by many. The First Baptist Church here in Jacksonville has about 25,000 people at each service, from what I've read (they have about ten parking garages downtown).
As scary as it is that he's considered a leader, it's clear, from reading the next to last letter to the editor in today's newspaper, that there are people who swallow the drivel coming from First Baptist.
posted by oaf at 4:55 PM on June 14, 2002

"It isn't Islam that is at fault, it's the lack of separation between religion and government."

Think you have cause and effect backwards.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:03 PM on June 14, 2002

ParisParamus, why would I refer to some past era in the West? There was condemnation for the acts of 9/11/01 (although not 02..) from all the major muslim groups (although, sadly, not from groups such as Al Mujhadeen (read: "fundamentalist"), who clever tv producers stuck on in the aftermath of the event. The condemnations were certainly in every major UK newspaper within a few days - dunno about the US (CAIR are odd sometimes..).

Islam in itself has a great inbuilt respect for women, read some of these articles if you have the time (some are better than others..). Look at Iran - popularly percieved as completely fundo, but with a higher percentage of females in the government than any Western country. I also believe there have been more muslim female heads of states in the world than non-muslim (although I need to check that up..).

The lack of respect for the female side of the population comes from cultural hangbacks rather than a theological basis - an incorrect fusion of culture and religion creates a bit of a mess that unsavoury elements can exploit.

Islam in 2002 provides a peaceful way of life for a large section of the World's population - you won't hear from 99.99% of the muslims as they are happy just to live in accordance with its teachings. Its the 0.01% of 'fundamentalists' who are the negative influence - they spew the same type of rhetoric Rev. Vines did above, and gain an audience for the same reason.
posted by Mossy at 5:20 PM on June 14, 2002

I second that, mossy. Count me in 99.99%
posted by adnanbwp at 5:42 PM on June 14, 2002

>"The Rev. Jerry Vines slams Islam while speaking to delegates"

"Anyone want to guess what the reaction would be if a Muslim leader denounced Jesus with this much venom?"

Strictly speaking, the parallel to Islam is Christianity, not Jesus per se, and we have heard a lot of condemnation of Christianity by Muslims. I don't know what the Islamist's view of Jesus, but in view of his Jewish origin I imagine the worst.

None of the above means that I agree with, or support Rev. Vines' views, or any other extremist religious views based on hatred.
posted by semmi at 6:38 PM on June 14, 2002

The Inquisition? Always a bad thing. The holocost? Never good. The crusades, pogroms, religous persecution, rape, murder, wars....those are morally reprehensible in any day and age. But you still gotta look at them with a historical understanding. #

I believe that there are transcendent moral truths, which are generally held to some degree by all cultures. The difference is in their specific social definitions, and subsequent applications.

As aacheson and rushmc have discussed, there is no denying that paedophilia is bad, but different cultures have a different definition of what kind of person is a "child", and what kind of person is an "adult" (I prefer Murray Rothbard's definition, where essentially a child becomes an adult when he can economically support himself).

Most cultures consider murder bad, but they may all have a different definition of murder. A large number of modern day Europeans would consider the death penalty murder, whereas medieval Europeans would consider robbing a church a hangable offense.

But don't these social definitions have a moral quality to them as well? It is useless to say that paedophilia is bad, but that a 'child' is only a human between the ages of 1 and 5. That would be a definition we would have to throw out. The same could be said for the Taliban and Nazi definitions of murder. To them, killing a homosexual or a Jew is not 'murder'. Again, that social definition is morally wrong. But how do we know these things, what is the source for our morality? Did we just make it up? Did we inherit it from generations of tradition? Where did those previous generations get it? Will the multiculturalists please stand up and tell me why it's bad to judge other cultures for their possibly backwards, immoral practices?

jesus was a happy man but now he's dead and that is all he is. #

I also found this quote to be innaccurate and unsubstantiated.... what was the rationale behind it Satapher?

As for "demon-possessed," Jesus received revelations from angels and God, (if you believe that stuff,) so what makes Mohammed any worse? #

It depends who you ask. I don't know where Rev. Vines gets demon-possessed, but any Muslim (assuming Muslims believe in the existence of demons, I don't know) or Christian would probably say it's better to get advice from God or an angel rather then a demon. To a Muslim, Jesus the prophet would be receiving revelation from God, definitely better than from a demon. Of course, your assertion is moot from a Christian view, because Jesus is God, so he's not receiving revelation from anyone, he is imparting revelation.

As for the demon-possessed, by Christian dogma Mohammed would be demon-possessed, as he preached the word of the same Lord as Jesus, but denied that Jesus was literally God's son... #

I have never seen anything in the Bible about this. Someone who claims to be Christ, or revises the story to fit their purposes is called a false teacher, not demon-possessed. We're not all witch-doctors, you know.

Right wing fundamentalists are a sad hate filled bunch. #

I found this quote extremely ironic, whether nofundy intended it to be or not, considering all the angry, vicious bile spewing forth towards Baptists (a denomination I generally disagree and am embarrassed with as a Christian) in this thread. There are a lot of sad, hate-filled athiests too. I'm going to stick with BitterOldPunks three great links on fundamentalism from Christians, Muslims, and Athiests. However, you guys are going after a fairly easy target with a sledgehammer.

It should be abundantly clear that these people are subhuman and submental, and their views on anything should be discounted. #

Whenever I hear the word subhuman, I shudder. Believe it or not, there is a quantifiable difference between Christian fundamentalist, and the brand of Muslim fundamentalists who teach a strict version of Sharia (religious law applied to civil government). For example, the Taliban pushed brick walls onto homosexuals. Admittedly, the fundamentalists of both faiths are interpreting their religious texts in a way that most find disagreeable, but I would say that the Christian faith has a stronger focus on grace and mercy, so in general the fundamentalism does not have as violent an outcome. For example, there is no nation on the face of the earth that calls itself Christian today and applies Biblical law, violently punishing people for adultery, or cutting off peoples hands for stealing bread.

There are 16 million people in the Baptist denomination. Would any of you dare paint 16 million muslims with the same broad brush?
posted by insomnyuk at 7:08 PM on June 14, 2002

Hell, it seems I screwed up all of the links save the one external, I was just trying to make it easier to find the posts I was referring to within the thread. Oh well, at least it looks pretty
posted by insomnyuk at 7:37 PM on June 14, 2002

>Why anyone would listen to what the Southern Baptist fuckwit Convention says about anything is beyond me.

From the St. Louis Today:

Pres. Bush addressed the convention live via satellite. "Bush, a United Methodist, listed many beliefs he holds in common with Southern Baptists."

I don't know if what Rev. Vines said is in line with Bush's beliefs, but, don't you think the people in attendance would think they were since he spoke at the event?

No one here has mentioned this. Nor to my knowledge has any reporter asked the Prez's press sec. how he reacted to the inflammatory statement.
posted by bas67 at 7:38 PM on June 14, 2002

I also find Islam problematic for its treatment of women. I also find the silence in the face of 9/11/02 disturbing. And please don't respond with some reference to a past era in the West. The whole point is that Islam in 2002 strikes me as not being the most positive of influences.

OK, let's look at modern history and the treatment of women. Yes, the Muslim world has problems with the treatment of women, but in the last 20 years, 75% of the Muslim world - that's 750 million people minimum - has lived at one time or another under the rule of a democratically elected woman leader (Bhutto twice in Pakistan, Ciller in Turkey, Megawati in Indonesia, and don't even get me started on Bangladesh - the president and her main rival are both women).

Complain to me when "liberated" America elects a woman president.
posted by laz-e-boy at 10:05 PM on June 14, 2002

umm laz-e-boy, allow me to add Indra Gandhi of India to that impressive list. Though not Muslim, but surely she was the Prime Minister of a country with a lot of Muslim citizens, some times greater in number than any of the other countries.
posted by adnanbwp at 1:58 AM on June 15, 2002